Alberyk

Item done and added to the pull request.

Item done and added to the pull request.

Item done and added to the pull request.

What about the following; CCIA gets Central command access only maglocks inside their bags or where they spawn.

Already handled in the round with a warning to the player in question by Loow.

The ban was expired.

Appeal denied.

From the rules: And in that round in question, your character somehow knew about reports of what Ana did, even if those reports did not even exist, neither your character would have access to them. Also, metagame for knowing and using an info that you are not even supossed to know in character. [20:52:57] bczOZf SAY: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro) : (Ceti Basic) That is a good joke from you, madam. Don't you kill people for calling you a cat, madam? [20:53:32] bczOZf SAY: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro) : (Ceti Basic) This unit has seen reports, madam. [20:57:25] bczOZf ADMIN: PM: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro)->Alberyk/(Sslazhir Yinzr): As in, reports of Ana's actions onstation, filed by crewmembers off-duty, about her violent tendencies. Also, there are prior notes about you and this kind of behavior; On the top of the week ban for ooc behavior issued due to a complaint. Now, I did not take this action alone, before, I got in contact with the entire admin team and we had a discussion, and both headmins did agree with my call. And even before other admin found that your actions were indeed rulebreaking and issued a warning: So, no, I did not act only by myself, I was not biased in this decision, because it was reached together by the admin staff. I fail to see how it is bias when the majority agree with this punishment. Also, I am not sure if not agreeing with you over dev matters would be any sign of holding a grudge, while I did deal with other issues related to you, and acted for or against your person when it was clearly needed. Also, in none moment I did say I had any short of grudge. "slaughtered the majority of medbay staff" did not happen, and this situation was already by the staff in a complaint and it was cleared as valid. Care to explain when any of my characters got out of their way to do anything against yours? Also, when you asked for other staffs to look upon issues, I never really denied it, as like I said several times before, this decision was not mine alone.

Alright, the staff did discuss this accident again, and as been said, Sue was told to stop at the time and she complied with staff, and further, the player was spoken by the staff to do not reply and carry on with insults, instead to report to the present staff on the moment, which happened in a later occasiation. Any other behavior of the like will be handled with basis on this. And take in mind that no party would be punished if they both dropped the subject when told so by myself. About the use of lethals, it was due to a vampire in frenzy, which was captured by security, then managed to free himself, the warden tried to stun them with baton, failed due to hulks being immune to stuns, and was disarmed of their baton and attacked with it. Ana aimed their revolver at the vampire, which did not comply and ended being wounded and arrested once. In the light of the target being immune to any stun and being armed, on the top of someone's life being danger, the use of the revolver there was clearly justified and followed proper escalation of force. Also, about the ban or anything not really related to the report on SueTheCake, feel free to make a staff complaint or a unban request, because this did end with the thread being derailed, and this is not the proper forum section for so. In case of any question or doubt, feel free to get in contact with any admin. This will be locked in around 24 hours.

Alright, I will lift this ban, but take in mind that any more displays of this kind of behavior will result in further punishment. Appeal accepted.

Any flashlight, not only the maglites.

Except this was said: [20:52:57] bczOZf SAY: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro) : (Ceti Basic) That is a good joke from you, madam. Don't you kill people for calling you a cat, madam? [20:53:32] bczOZf SAY: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro) : (Ceti Basic) This unit has seen reports, madam. When we asked what reports you said the following: [20:57:25] bczOZf ADMIN: PM: Chaznoodles/(Gainsboro)->Alberyk/(Sslazhir Yinzr): As in, reports of Ana's actions onstation, filed by crewmembers off-duty, about her violent tendencies. And then, you asked for other admin to deal with this, which resulted in the following: Which does mean your character would know about such reports, which you did know how to explain where, and it is clear that ic reports are not public to all characters, and yes, even knowing about those is metagame, because your character has no access to those. And abour ooc conduct, you have indeed a warning related to the player in question. Also, you have been warned about this behavior, in relation to the same player: And then, a ban related to to this complaint, which is also related to ooc conduct. Also, take in mind I was not the only staff member to look upon the issue, I did bring this case to all admins and we reached this conclusion. And then, when was getting in contact with you via ahelp, you replied with such before logging: [10:34:10] bYnQZf ADMIN: PM: Alberyk/(Sslazhir Yinzr)->Chaznoodles/(Chaznoodles): Hello, we need to talk. [10:34:24] bYnQZf ADMIN: PM: Chaznoodles/(Chaznoodles)->Alberyk/(Sslazhir Yinzr): Not going to talk to you :^) And at last, related to the discord, I only tried to issue a strike because you did not stop baiting/tauting after told to stop, while the other party already done so.

Sonic already made a good point in this case, and most of the logs for this talk: https://imgur.com/a/9Km0P Also, take in mind that I told to all to stop with that talk, Sue and others did, while you kept tauting and baiting Sue, which you did to start this talk as well. And no, I did not threaten you with ban from discord because you would make a report, but because you ignored my warning to drop it and carried on, in fact, no real action was taken against you even if you clearly ignored what staff told you. And I never said I have any bias against you, I did deal with several issues where you were part of them and ruled for, and against, when it was clearly needed. And in the top of this, you were warned on the server, in the same day and in that round in question, for metagaming possible info and metagrudge related to the player in question, and that was not even issued fully by me, because I allowed other staff member to look into the matter and they reached the same decision as mine. While I agree that Sue should have reported it to staff, I fully understand this reaction in face of the harassament that has been happening for a solid time.

Hello, sorry for the wait. The original ban reason is the following one: "Banned from Syndicate - Bombing the central ring without any proper reason as new cop, and then just doing massive shoot-outs without any real prior interaction besides bombing the station or killing the crew." While I am not really against unbanning you from antag positions, since you did improve when you started here, I am not fully if we should trust you back with antag positions, because you seems to make questionable choices while antagging. So, in the accident that resulted in your ban, could you explain what exactly is the issue with it and how it goes against the rules and general spirit of the server?

The fact this ring can appear on cargo is due to Nanako's not fully fixing the fact that custom gloves items can appear on the cargo loot.

Besides the points that Muncorn and Jackboot made, I have little to nothing to question in the application. Now, while I had few interactions with most of TrickingTrapster characters, the ones that I had the opportuniy to rp with and observe, I could say it is mostly an interesting situation, such as Albert Gizro being a memorable character. TrickingTrapster seems to have a good graps on unathi lore and their concept, while also having a background which uses the elements of the species, outside of some minor issues already pointed out.

Interview with the player:

Alright, here is the issue; that is your second perma ban and from your notes: So, you had plently of chances, and I believe that a third one is not happening here.

Item done and added to the code, you should be able to spawn with it now.

Item done and added to the code, you should be able to spawn with it now.

Item done and added to the code, you should be able to spawn with it now.

Follow the format.

Appeal accepted.

You were banned for grief-like behavior, after having some notes and a warning in the same day. While I am not against a second chance, read the rules, and take in mind that doing the same thing you were banned for will clearly result in a perma ban being applied once more. I will lift this ban tomorrow if nothing comes up about.

The main purpose of the chance was to give command staff a control over them, and I did see less combat cyborgs. However, it is fully possible to just fall back to the plan of only allowing them via a research upgrade.